Page tags

Add a new page

Do you have a favourite Truth-Teller to add to this list? You can get a free wikidot acct and join the site where you can edit text directly, or you can leave me a request and I'll add the Truth-Teller for you:

Here's some more background info from my saved documents on Radioisotopes, what they are, what they do and how to protect (somewhat) yourself from them. Use whatever you wish and discard the rest. Good luck.

Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe:

A Message from Dr. Rosalie Bertell

Dr. Rosalie Bertell

3-24-11

Dear Friends and Residents of this interdependent global home:

I cannot give magical answers to everyone's needs at this time of crisis with the Japanese nuclear disaster. However, I can give you a few tips on how to listen to the official "expert" statements given on CNN or NHK or other networks, plus some tips on what to eat or not eat.

First, there is a great difference between medical use of radiation, with direct risk and benefit to a patient and the random distribution of a comparable dose to a large population. In the latter case the risk is magnified and the benefit goes to filling some general society benefit. Hence, the individual harm may be sacrificed for the military or economic good of a country. How or why we must make this trade off has never been well understood by the public or well explained and agreed to by reasonable civil society.

There is also a significant difference between internal contamination with radioactive debris from a nuclear disaster and direct irradiation from an external medical devise under the control of a professional who can ask for your consent, limit the exposure and take care of any problems which might unwittingly occur. When internal radioactive tracers are used in medicine they have short half lives (both biologically and physically) and are not similar to plutonium, uranium, or thorium, or other debris found in nuclear disasters.

Nevertheless, both exposures can be significant, and require some consent by those at risk. Unfortunately, this prior consent is absent in a disaster!

Persons with good general health and good basic nutritional health will fare better when the food, air, or water is contaminated since the body normally chooses uncontaminated food when it is available to it. Avoid eating salads, if you are suspicious of them being contaminated by fallout or contaminated water; and always wash carefully fruits and vegetables to remove any surface contamination.

Do not take Potassium Iodide without medical supervision. The Iodine-131 has a short half-life, and probably will not travel very far from the source unless the release from the reactor is explosive. If there is radioactive Iodine in milk then there probably also is Cobalt-60, a very dangerous gamma radiation emitter. The inorganic Cobalt is incorporated into organic Vitamin B-12 in the udder of the cow and becomes much more dangerous to the liver when ingested in milk. Be careful to get sufficient rest so that the body can undertake efficient repair of any damage. Keep hydrated with the best water available to you!

Although it is true that alpha radiation, the primary radiation in early fallout, can be stopped by paper, when this same radioactivity is released inside the body it does about 20 times the cellular damage as the equivalent dose of X-ray.

I like to hold the food in my hands and thank it for its goodness. Then I ask that it protect me from any harmful contaminants it holds. I think this a sort of modern Prayer Before Meals, and not irrelevant under the circumstances.

I wish you well, and especially hold in prayer the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and all the other radiation victims/survivors of our world, for they are terrified by this massive threat which they hoped no one would ever have to suffer again!

Peace! Rosalie Bertell

"I have singled out the military as the key to quick 'surgical' actions; trying to resolve the social and environmental problems that are often directly related to their activities. (When I was invited in 1978 to a Japanese commemoration ceremony for Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors) I introduced the Japanese survivors to some American veterans, and it was touching to see them invite these 'enemies' to come to Japan as their guests. The Japanese honored their guests and new bonds of friendship, based on their common suffering and stronger than the hatred of war, were formed."

Rosalie Bertell. "Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War. A Critical Study into the Military and the Environment." 2000: pages 194-195.

The sorbent method of charcoal filtration has long been used to capture radioiodine.2 It is possible to filter heating,ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) intake air using this technique. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends sorbent filtration installation down line from particulate filters to collect vapors formed on the filters from capture of the radioactive aerosol. Adsorbent capacity must be determined with consideration for the effects of humidity, temperature, and iodine buildup on the sorbent. The breakthrough point of the iodine vs. charcoal bed size will give some idea of the period of protection that charcoal filtration will afford.

At least one charcoal filtration supply-company manufactures a HVAC filtration system for chemical, biological and nuclear attack.3 The system uses a prefilter, a first stage high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, a first stage carbon filter (V-bed arrangement using salt/metal impregnated "whetlerite" charcoal for reactivity with chlorine, phosgene and mustard gases; 12 x 30mesh), a second stage carbon bed and finally a second stage HEPA filter. This system is self-contained, uses a "bag in/bag out" system for filter change-out and is provided with test ports for determining breakthrough from the 1st carbon stage. It can pull 9,000 ft3 per minute. Considering the installation costs and maintenance of such a system, it may be more efficient to stockpile potassium iodide pills for distribution to building occupants when radioiodine is released and sheltering in place is enforced or recommended by governmental authorities. Potassium iodide blocks the uptake of radioactive iodine but does not protect against other types of radiation or other toxicmaterials (seewww.fda.gov/cder/guidance/4… for guidance about use).

Close proximity to building materials covered with significant amounts of gamma-emitting contaminated dust and debris

Proximity to a fragment of a large gamma-source for a long period until rescued.

Protection against radioactive aerosols produced outdoors is not very different from chemical or biological toxin defense. Air filtration of intake air is key. Traditionally, HEPA filters are employed because of their high air-cleaning capacity. However, these filters create significant pressure drops that will require powerful fans and motors to overcome.

Here's my "difficulty" with the media information on radioactive isotope efffects to humans from releases from a nuclear power plant undergoing meltdown and fuel rod decomposition.

I-131 is just one of several other isotopes of Iodine released. If that is all we are supposed to worry about (In regards to Iodine), why did it take nine years for childhood thyroid cancers to start to break out in children affected by our nuclear blast fallout (the same Fukushima Iodine isotopes were released as well as caesium-137 and others in those explosions)?

What about I-129 (15.6 million year half life!)? I-129 is what Ludlum isotope detection meters are set to because I-129 contamination in the ground water is the primary means used to track Chernobyl effects to this day.

WHY isn't anyone talking about I-129? Do they think we can't handle it or do they think we'll demand this insanity that is nuclear plants and weapons be stopped immediately if we know the whole truth?

Follow my logic here, please. After 10 half-lives any radioactive isotope emission is below background radiation and is, therefore, safe. I-131 is, therefore, safe after 10 X 8 = 80 days. How does a child or human get cancer nine years later after 80 days of gradually decreasing radiation exposure? NO, I think those cancers had more to do with I-129.

These and other Isotopes CAN be filtered out of our air with NBC (nuclear biological chemical) filters. We should demand our government do so or pay to fit our buildings with them and provide headgear at least for the children.The children, because their thyroids are growing, absorb Iodine faster than adults. The children are the high risk pool here, folks. That is one of the reasons I go into a blind rage sometimes when these nuclear power plant apologists lie, obfuscate and generally avoid the tragic truth. They are sacrificing the world's children for profit. I don't believe it is possible to stoop lower than that.

Japan is using activated charcoal in their water purification plants now as a "better than nothing" method of extracting I-131 from the water. We need to do this and much more. Consider the fact that Cs-137 behaves chemically exactly like Potassium. Google Potassium content of food for human consumption. Do you get the picture? Thirty years X 10 half lives = 300 years. Have you ever heard of the sodium-potassium pump in the human body? If you have then you can begin to understand what will happen to you when you experience the sodium-caesium-137 pump. Bananas, for example, will take up Cs-137 happily because it mimics potassium. Ask your cardiologist what the role of Potassium is in a healthy heart. Look up Cs-137 at wikipeda and find out how it wipes out red blood cell production by colonizing your bone marrow. You make 2 million red blood cells a second. Your total supply is about 120 days. Do the math. And that doesn't include what the first thing to go, your white blood cells, does to leave you defenseless before any opportunistic pathogen.

So simple shielding won't work. That is just step one. We must avoid ingestion of radioactive isotopes with NBC filtering in our buildings, vehicles and on our persons when we are outside. Water and crops need to be monitored and protected from contamination, not just on the surface but as an integral part of the fruit. It can be done. It will require a sea change in our behavior patterns. Even so, we have certainlly trashed nature and guaranteed grisly mutations in wild animals and vegetation world wide as well as the death of many species. You cannot evolve your way around radiation. It strikes at DNA and RNA mechanisms and destroys them from a whale to a virus. Not even the extremophile in deep ocean sulphur vents can survive hard radiation. Stop avoiding this reality.

What can we do?

For now we must concentrate on making the government in general and the nuclear industry in particular pay for our NBC gear from people to farms and buildings. Also, if there is to be a future for humanity, anything nuclear from power plants to bombs must be deep sixed NOW. I don't know how long the decommissioning process takes and I know all that waste will be there for thousands of years but we must begin the process NOW. As to medical use radioctive tracers, there are easily controlled ways of making them without massive and monstrous power plants so don't be fooled by that strawman that nuclear medicine saves lives. Sure it does. But you don't need bombs and power plants to make radioactive tracers for medical use.

If you ignore this and our governments all over the world do nothing and 6 or 7 years from now your child gets thyroid cancer, how will you feel? Will you be glad you "didn't panic"? Will you accept that as the "way things are"? Will you have a party with all your friends that ridicule people like me as nutballs and sky is falling scaremongers?

People, this is one crisis that the Wall Street/Nuclear Industry/War industry PR machine cannot game. But they will try. Did you read the CNN article about the 1,000% increase in purchase of super shelters by the super rich? These shelters all have NBC filters. For some reason, the media doesn't call these people scare mongers or sky is falling loonies.

How come?

Start a petition to kill this monster for the sake of your children and civilization. Copy, paste and print this. Check everything said in it. Double check it. Learn the names of the daughter products in the nuclear fuel cycle. Get a list of all the names of all isotopes released at TMI (three mile island), Chernobyl, Fukushima and the nuclear blast tests in the 50s and 60s. Spread the word.

Then scream at our government for protection. They claim they want to protect us, right? Tell them to put the NBC filters where their big fat homeland security mouth is.

WE NEED NBC FILTRATION! DEMAND IT!

fissile material: nuclei that undergoes fission when a neutron is absorbed.

fission: bombarding a radioactive isotope with a neutron in order to split the nucleus into smaller parts, releasing energy.

fission products: isotopes produced when fissile material is split after colliding with a neutron.

transmutation: radioactive decay induced by particle bombardment.

proton bombardment: the bombardment of a nucleus with a proton in order to effect nuclear decay.

meltdown: a possible situation that may occur when a nuclear reactor core gets so hot (accidentally) that the fuel rods melt and release the radioactive fission products trapped inside.

control rod: rods of cadmium or boron which can be placed in or removed from the core of a nuclear reactor to control the number of neutrons causing a chain reaction by absorbing neutrons.

It is important to realize there are two different key objects within the reactor vessel: Fuel Cells, and Control Rods. The Control Rods were inserted in between Fuel Cells to stop the fission process (neutron flux)that is ongoing (this is called a SCRAM) That basically kills the reaction, but as the article states the decay heat and SELF fission of radioactive isotopes keeps generating heat within the vessel. If proper cooling is maintained and the fission process is kept shut down, after a good amount of time, you don't need to continue to supply cooling water…just maintain a water blanket over the core. Any residual decay heat will be lost to the ambient environment (i.e. to the vessel, piping, air in the Reactor compartment, etc.) It will reach an equilibrium. The time it takes to reach equilibrium depends on things like reactor size, operational temps/press, fuel loading, etc.

A BWR contains thousands of thin, straw-like tubes 12 feet in length, known as fuel rods, that in the case of Fukushima are made of a zirconium alloy. Inside those fuel rods is sealed the actual fuel, little ceramic pellets of uranium oxide. The fuel rods are bundled together in the core of the reactor. During a nuclear fission chain reaction, the tubes heat up to extremely high temperatures, and the way to keep them safe turns out to also be the way to extract useful energy from them. The rods are kept submerged in demineralized water, which serves as a coolant.

Corium is the lava-like result of meltdown.

It does not require a locally critical mass to breach a containment vessel and create a corium splash. However, with a large enough locally critical nuclear fuel zone in the corium blob the containment vessel breach is almost inevitable. A blob without a locally critical zone is the most likely scenario.

In the most likely scenario, and the only scenario observed in any nuclear disaster to date, the blob cools as it dissipates the heat generated while it was critical. The number of neutrons the mass generates decreases, and the sub-critical mass begins to act like a lump of hot metal. The famous corium flow at Chernobyl called "the elephant’s foot" is now only slightly warmer than ambient temperatures, and it has only been 25 years since that was formed. It is important, however, to remember that the Chernobyl corium flow was many metric tons in size (the elephant’s foot alone was two metric tons) and so the fuel was diluted far beyond the concentration where any sub-critical nuclear reactions would contribute significantly to its heat.

The hot metal is very hot even for hot metal. When it comes into contact with normally non-volatile material, like concrete, the outgassing can cause explosive dispersal. The amount of dispersal is dependent on the amount of heat in the corium, and the outgassing potential of the material it comes into contact with. The dispersal energy would determine the size and scope of the environmental disaster.

The other contributing factor would be the concentration of radioactive material in the ejecta. Most of the material in the corium blob would either be highly radioactive before entering into the blob, or become highly radioactive because it adsorbed neutrons from fuel material fission within the blob. Other material would become radioactive if it were dispersed with splatters from the blob.

If corium is explosively dispersed it could become a very widespread problem. Corium is so hot that many materials interacting with it are melted into a glasslike or ceramic state. Much of this material is naturally friable. In addition to natural friability the highly radioactive material spontaneously degenerates, causing small-particle generating fractures. Even large chunks of ejecta can form small respiratable particles which easily disperse over enormous areas, or re-aerosolize.

Where do iodine-129 and iodine-131 come from?

Both iodine-129 and iodine-131 are produced by the fission of uranium atoms during operation of nuclear reactors and by plutonium (or uranium) in the detonation of nuclear weapons.

How do iodine-129 and iodine-131 get into the environment?

Iodine-129 and iodine-131 are gaseous fission products that form within fuel rods as they fission. Unless reactor chemistry is carefully controlled, they can build up too fast, increasing pressure and causing corrosion in the rods. As the rods age, cracks or wholes may breach the rods.

The long half-life of iodine-129, 15.7 million years, means that it remains in the environment. However, iodine-131's short half-life of 8 days means that it will decay away completely in the environment in a matter of months. Both decay with the emission of a beta particle, accompanied by weak gamma radiation.

An effective dose of 1 Sv requires 1 gray of beta or gamma radiation, but only 0.05 Gy of alpha

radiation or 0.1 Gy of neutron radiation.

In water testing, the existence of samples exceeding the 500-mrem (5 mSv) ADLs (Analytical Decision Levels) should be communicated to the IC (Integrated Consortium) of laboratory Networks as soon as possible

Max annual dose in a nuclear power plant is about 1 mSv.

Primer on radiation measures and what they mean:

Geiger Counter Numbers, How Bad is Bad?

Given the recent events in Japan and the nuclear reactor damage and radiation entering the atmosphere there, the following information may help to understand the units of measurement being discussed, and how it may correlate to Geiger Counter readings such as those being displayed around the country on the Radiation Network.

.

..

..

Thank you. You are free to quote anything I have written with or without attribution. My name is A.G. Gelbert

Here's the full post thread from that droll troll discussion FYI:

Posted by agelbert

May 18 2011 - 7:20pm

The behind-the-scenes story of former British Energy Secretary Tony Benn’s transformation from the nuclear industry’s political master, to one of its most passionate critics.

IMO the most telling thing about the video you referenced [ http://vimeo.com/3433825 ] featuring the ex-minister of UK's nuke power prog- is something that Bill admitted to in an earlier post when I posed the question 'Why If Thorium Salt Reactors are so much safer than standard PWR & BWR reactors & there [unlike fusion reactors] are working scale models of thorium salt reactors- didn't [& still don't] the NRC & nuke industry push thorium salt reactors over PWR & BWR reactors'.

All current production scale nuke plants [& even some / most research nuke reactors] can be, & I suspect are, used to produce plutonium 239 - from U238. AND- P239 is the prefered material for making sophisticated thermo nuke triggers & warheads! So when fission nuke proponents imply that there's no 'real' connection between the two - no for a surety that- EITHER: THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT -OR- THEY'RE SPINNING THE TRUTH [IE: LYING]!

and the article "Hormesis: are low doses of ionizing radiation harmful or beneficial? " question of ionizing radiation as a force for good in living organisms (http://bjr.birjournals.org/cgi….

The problem here is the premise. The premise is that immune systems BENEFIT from challenges to the integrity of the host because they are forced to adapt to attacks. This in turn benefits the host because the immune system can deal with more issues thereby conferring an evolutionary advantage on the host. This is a valid premise when you are dealing with bacterial and viral infections. Our immune systems have various tricks up their sleeves to deal with these tiny invaders which we developed dealing with bacteria. Hence the concept of immunization vaccines is used to exercise our immune system and defeat, for example, small pox. But this concept falls flat when dealing with toxic chemicals and radioactivity. Of course there are organisms out there (extremophiles) that can deal with high heat levels and thrive. But, again, heat is not chemistry or radiation. No one has "evolved" around mercury poisoning, subsequent mutations and birth deffects. To say that a little mercury is great stuff because only the strong will survive is not logical. Immune systems are not weight lifters that need to work out continuously to grow sronger. As any biologist knows, an overtaxed immune system is a death sentence. The articles completely ignore the homeostatic nature of the human range of bioactivity that results in death when DNA is taxed beyond our homeostatic nature. That is exactly what occurs in radiation DNA disorganization. These articles do qualify the alleged "benefit" of LOW LEVEL radiation. They say nothing of medium or high level radiation (obviously). The fact is, these articles are taking the repair mechanisms inherent in DNA and RNA which respond to breaks as proof that radiation is like weight lifting for weight lifters. See, it makes our immune systems stronger and makes us more naturally selected so radiation is great stuff!

1) DNA repair mechanisms haven't got beans to do with an evolutionary response to high background radiation. They evolved fighting our tiny titans, the myriad species of bacteria.

2) The only ancient life form that seemed to do okay in a high radiation environment was the cyanobacteria. These babies changed our atmosphere to about 23% oxygen.

3) AFTER we obtained a certain amount of oxygen in our atmosphere, we obtained that nifty ionospheric shield which dramatically reduced radiation striking the earth.

4) Only then did the explosion of life begin. From wikipeda:

"The ability of cyanobacteria to perform oxygenic photosynthesis is thought to have converted the early reducing atmosphere into an oxidizing one, which dramatically changed the composition of life forms on Earth by stimulating biodiversity and leading to the near-extinction of oxygen-intolerant organisms. "

Articles like those Bill brought up make mountains out of mole hills. They remind me of the "smoking is good for you because they increase your powers of concentration" articles. There is a grain of truth. There is also an agenda. Close analysis reveals the agenda is to build a logical castle on a false premise. In this case the word "LOW" in the discussion of radiation effects on immune systems is a dead give away that no serious discussion of the DNA code killing effects will be included.

Finally, anyone who wants to make a case that the ability of cyanobacteria to handle high radiation levels is proof that radiation can be "handled" by life forms should remember that those cyanobacteria survived ONLY because they were several feet below the surface using water as a radiation shield. Had they been restricted to photosynthesis on the ocean surface, we would not be here because the high background radiation would have killed them. The ability to photosynthesize BELOW the surface saved them and made life for us possible.

But now the nuclear power industry will kill all of us if we don't stop it permanently. It's possible that it's too late but that won't stop people like myself from patiently explaining and pointing out the pollution, corruption, complicity, lies, secrecy and callous, inhuman disdain for life on earth that the nuclear industry and their apologists are responsible for.

Bill, your term "loosing your agnosticism" was an incorrect use of the word agnosticism. An agnostic has no agenda and no favorites. It doesn't mean that he doesn't give a fuck about the damage he does with his propaganda as long as he is benefitng from the nuclear status quo.

reply

Posted by drolltroll

May 18 2011 - 10:36pm

ag,

Appreciate your take on the articles.

Would it be fair to paraphrase your response as: I think the hypothesis is flawed because it is inconsistent with my training as a biologist, therefore any data presented which supports the hypothesis is either defective or made up to support an agenda?

When I said I was loosing my agnosticism, I was referring specifically to radiation hormesis vs LNT for low level radiation, not to the more general subject of nuclear power. I acknowledge that I believe nuclear power to be vital to society-not agnostic about that at all.

For those who might be following this esoteric debate, the correct link for the second article is www.degroenerekenkamer.nl/grkf…

Bill

(Comment expanded)

reply

Flag

Posted by agelbert

May 19 2011 - 1:13am

Bill,

"Would it be fair to paraphrase your response as: I think the hypothesis is flawed because it is inconsistent with my training as a biologist, therefore any data presented which supports the hypothesis is either defective or made up to support an agenda? "

No, it wouldn't be fair because the statement is incorrect.

I never challenged the hypothesis. I challenged the premise, which can only properly be applied to bacterial and viral infections. The data presented is accurate insofar as DNA can self repair in low level radiation. YOUR hypothesis is to extrapolate from this amazing ability that DNA has, that this ability came from evolution in a high level of background radiation. I presented the current scientific consensus on the evolution of life on our planet. If you want to question that, feel free to do so but be man enough to admit it.

My knowledge of biology is a bias only in that I am intimately acquainted with the many ways there are that living systems can be destroyed. And you consider that a bias? Bill, life forms have evolved all kinds of mechanisms to deal with neurotoxins in snake and spider venom. A case can be made for our immune systems benefiting from low levels of venom to strengthen the immune response. But you can't make anti-bodies against radiation. Granted, modern medicine is developing a class of drugs that aids the body in discarding a portion of the free radicals formed as a result of ionizing radiation but the literature is clear that they have only been proven somewhat protective to people suffering radiation doses if the people received the drugs prior to radiation exposure.

For what it's worth, here's a very brief layout of how radiation (the medical literature DOES NOT specify any level beyond the ability to ionize) produces cancer.

Every cell needs energy to live. That energy comes in the form of ATP (adenosine tri phosphate). No ATP equals DEATH. Now there's a family of proteins called tyrosine kinase enzymes that regulate ATP phosphorilation. They are immensly important to life. ATP is the energy package but tyrosine kinase enzymes do the leg work.

ENTER RADIATION:

Radiation upregulates tyrosine kinase enzymes (TKEs). The upregulated TKEs then "forget" to tell cells when to die (failng to activate by signaling pathways which deny cells of ATP and trigger apoptosis -cell death) so cells don't die when they should and simultaneously "encourages" cell multiplication by putting the pedal to the metal on phosphorilation (lots of ATP energy). And so, the host gets tumors. Many cancers — leukemia, breast, lung, malignant melanoma, to name a few — contain mutations in tyrosine kinase enzymes that result in unregulated cell growth. A major breakthrough in cancer treatment was the development of Imatinib, marketed as Gleevec, which inhibits these tyrosine kinases, halting cancer growth. However, the cells do not die, but persist in a quiescent state, allowing some cancerous cells to evolve resistance to the drug and reemerge. Translation, poor prognosis.

Malfunctioning TKEs in Leukemia, for example, are associated with cancer of the immune system. You know, that same immune system that low level radiation is supposed to make more robust, according to those articles you mentioned.

Please understand, the very basis of life is ATP phosphorilation. You cannot even twitch your eyelid without phosphorilation.

All those cancers take time to develop. I am NOT talking about ARS (Acute Radiation Sickness) here. At the low and medium radiation levels, the attack is insiduous. At high levels, DNA disorganization is so horrendous that the cells in the bone marrow cannot produce red blood cells at sufficient quantities to prevent anemia and the several types of neutrophils in the immune system stop being made too. This leaves the person wide open to death by trauma or infection. It is not widely discussed, but radiation exposure combined with trauma multiplies the possibility of morbidity.

reply

Posted by Nixakliel

May 19 2011 - 4:07am

This RH Theory can be & I suspect is used real conveniently by the nuke industry & other industrial emitters of so-called 'low level' radiation [IE: cell-phone makers, medical radiation 'therapies', micro-wave ovens, etc]. 'Technically' we know there's something called natural back-ground radiation - heck you can even describe sunlight 'technically' as natural background 'radiation'. BUT once you start ADDING industrial radiation from sources like those named above - you've gone beyond natural levels & sources of so-called back-ground radiation.

AND- Once the nuke industry started mining uranium on an industrial scale [let alone building nuke reactors & bombs] environmental radiation levels increased well past natural levels of back-ground radiation. So its real self-serving that these industrial emitters of radiation would push a theory that blurs the distinction between natural radiation levels & sources & the ADDITION of so-called 'low level' industrial radiation!

reply

Flag

*new*

Posted by agelbert

May 19 2011 - 3:35pm

Quite right. The nuclear industry is Orwellian in it's use of propaganda. They know damn good and well what radiation does and how it kills. They just want to make sure most people out there don't. Your point about food irradiation (to kill fecal coliforms which are bacteiia - i.e. life forms by scrambling their DNA) is an excellent example of the obvious danger to life forms of radiation. The apologists for all things nuclear rush in and say, "No, no, no, food level radiation is high. We are talking about the good and good for you low level". It's all bullshit but they have great fun trying to foist in on us.

But a lot of these nuclear apologists may be ignorant of TKEs (see comments on cancer). Perhaps Bill didn't know about this and may discover he has been party to a killer technology. As an engineer, it is quite possible that he has no contact with Oncologists. The discovery of the TKE mechanism in cancer is relatively recent so he may not know it. Perhaps he will have a "road to Damascus" conversion and reject the nuclear industry. Or perhaps the nuclear industry is busy trying to buy the silence of Oncologists on the direct cause and effect relationship of radiation to upregulated (cancer causing) TKEs.

I hope many read this, cut and paste it, and go question an oncologist hard. This needs to get out.

edit

reply

Posted by Elisabet

May 18 2011 - 9:03pm

So, "radioactive materials" are spewing into the atmosphere freely every day since March 11, 2011 from the Fuckitshima energy farm. Lately, they say this thing won't be under control until January next year. Can we invent a massive water dome to pop over the site? Build a massive swimming pool to submerge the whole mess?

reply

Flag

Posted by drolltroll

May 18 2011 - 9:28pm

Elisabet,

According to a joint DOE/METI aerial survey, there has been no increase in land contamination since March 19. Land contamination would come from airborne release. There has, of course, been no shortage of waterborne contamination.

Bill

reply

Flag

Posted by agelbert

May 18 2011 - 9:10pm

Here's some proof that the decision to severely pollute the ocean was political to avoid the atmospheric radiation detectors worldwide going ape. They could care less about the meltdowns. The water was to keep the radiation out of the atmosphere.

Release of radioactive water made at request of U.S.: Cabinet adviser

Kyodo

SEOUL — Japanese playwright Oriza Hirata, who serves as a special adviser to the Cabinet, claimed in a recent lecture given in Seoul that the dumping of low-level radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean followed a "strong request" from the United States, a person who attended the lecture said Wednesday.

The release of the water from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant last month generated anxiety about the possible spread of radioactive contamination from the seaside power station.

The Japanese government had apparently given its permission for the release of the water after receiving a report from plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co.

edit

reply

Posted by ezeflyer

May 18 2011 - 9:32pm

Should each Nuclear Plant carry one trillion dollars in liablity insurance without government funding?

Vote:

O—-Yes

O—-No

reply

Flag

Posted by minitrue

May 18 2011 - 9:41pm

Should each Nuclear Plant carry one trillion dollars in liablity insurance without government funding?

Vote:

X—-Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!!!!!!

O—-No

reply

Flag

Posted by drolltroll

May 18 2011 - 10:29pm

Mini,

You're ballot stuffing! You from Chicago?

reply

Flag

Posted by agelbert

May 19 2011 - 1:20am

No, he's probably got some Navajo in him.

edit

reply

Posted by ThomasJefferson…

May 18 2011 - 10:41pm

The Obama Administration and the nuclear industry are both incompetent custodians of pubic safety.

As Ralph Nader has correctly laid it out: Why are we allowing either to play Russian Roulette with our health?????????

Let's get rid of both of them. Let's Impeach Barak Osama, and defund the nuclear industry before it's too late.

TJ

reply

Flag

Posted by sLiMsHaDy

May 19 2011 - 2:21am

Too bad that "Shima" doesn't mean "Obama" in Japanese.

reply

Flag

Posted by agelbert

May 19 2011 - 3:48am

Here's a great video which goes into some detail explaining the effects of low level radiation on Uranium miners and surrounding communities.

A couple of days ago I watched a recent interview w Christian Parenti of 'The Nation' w MSNBC's Ed Schultz. Parenti says that what this so-called 'Nuclear Renaissance' is really all about - IS NOT Bringing safer nuke technology on-line [sorry Bill but if he's right - Thorium Salt Reactors ain't happening] - WHAT IT IS ABOUT is the NRC re-licensing the 104 existing nuke reactors plants FOR ANOTHER 25 YRS - even though most have reached their 40 yr life-time design limit! PLUS they want to run them at 120% power [That's 20% ABOVE THEIR DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS] even though 1/4+ of them are leaking radiation - due to the fact that the combo of extreme: radiation + pressure + heat- has CORRODED & MADE MANY CRITICAL METAL PARTS BRITTLE! THIS IS INSANITY ON STEROIDS & A RECIPE FOR DISASTER! Just how many Fukushimas do these folks think we & eco-sphere can survive??!!

PS: They also showed a video of Obama saying earlier this yr [pre Fukushima] how SAFE Japan's Nuke power prog was - 'Something for us to model'… It was a ironic foot-in-the-mouth repeat of his statement last yr of how - 'Current drilling technology makes massive oil spills a thing of the past…' - just a few weeks before BP flooded the Gulf of Mexico in Oil!

reply

Flag

Posted by pensatrice

May 19 2011 - 11:15am

Thanks for the video links and the arguments, agelbert.

I think the scientific/biological argument against nuclear power will always fall of deaf ears. We purposefully conflate low level and high level radiation, acute and chronic effects, apha, beta, and gamma rays. We also pretend that there are "acceptable levels" of radiation which, conveniently, can appear to be raised arbitrarily when they are reached, as in the case of Funukshima.

reply

Flag

Posted by agelbert

May 19 2011 - 3:22pm

You are welcome. Please pass it on.

They nuclear industry owns the media. We have the forums like this one. We are the underdogs but we have truth and desire to promote life on earth for all living things on our side.

Helen Caldicott's video by NSearch on Fukushima will scare the hell out of you, but at least it gives us an expert's view on what's happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?…. The main problem is that we, the people, are being lied to, have been lied to about the "safety" of nuclear. Not only are the leaks catastrophic, but the etiology, psychology and pathology behind nuclear, whether it is energy or bombs, is a recipe for extinction. Emissions, from preparing the plutonium for use in reactors to the gases that are given off by nuclear plants, one of which is CFC114, which is 10,000-20,000 times more potent than CO2 as a global warmer, isn't even on the media radar, ever. As well, we breathe in these same gases which collect in the fatty tissues and are carcinogenic and are hugely mutagenic. Cancer is the result. Over a million people have died since Chernobyl (25 years ago) from fallout from that radiation. She states that fallout has already been reported in Oklahoma, Seattle, Boston and other cities in the US. This could be a game ender for us. It doesn't look good at all, and Caldicott states that Fukushima can never be cleaned up, that the leaks into the ocean and the gasses blowing over the continent will have lasting repercussions, mostly of them deadly. Yet you still have "experts" saying that nuclear is the cleanest of energy sources. Lies, lies, lies, damn lies.

.

..

2011-06-15
Jaczko, 40, has been under fire in recent days,
Inspector General Hubert T. Bell said Jaczko manipulated the panel's four other commissioners by selectively withholding information on a crucial safety review of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada. Jaczko's actions allowed him to shut down the review last year without a vote of the full commission.

wow, they must hate him

U.S. officials, most notably Nuclear Regulatory Chairman Gregory Jaczko, had warned that all the water was gone from one of the spent fuel pools at Japan's troubled nuclear plant,

U.S. officials never have fully explained why Jaczko made the claim but said it was based on information from NRC staff and other experts who went to Japan after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami.

Japanese officials had denied the pool was dry and reported that the plant's condition was stable.

"I think deep-down there was a belief that you would never see an event like this, that just simply we had done everything to basically take this type of event completely off the table. And obviously, we haven't," Jaczko said.

incoming message from the big giant head

Water used to cool radioactive waste at the stricken nuclear complex in Japan did not dry up, as earlier feared, U.S. regulators said Wednesday in a reversal of a claim that pitted U.S. officials against Japan

Let me lead you through what the spent fuel pond of Reactor 4 contains in the way of radionuclides. I was taken to task after my last article for not listing enough of the radionuclide contaminants. So for the record, though some may find it boring, let me remedy that. It is an impressive list of lethal material:

These are the main ones. There are a lot more, and decay daughters of these also. It is a scary amount of invisible death. The total quantity of all these in the spent fuel pool of reactor 4 is about 10 to the 21st Becquerels, if we leave out the noble gases and iodines maybe 10 to the 20th (that is, 1 with 20 zeroes). Maybe 50 to 100 Chernobyl accidents worth, or more depending on what you believe came out of Chernobyl.